A’s Ballpark

Baseball and the Bay Area go together like sour and dough. Joe DiMaggio was the first person to say that, I believe.

Or maybe it was Rickey Henderson. Or Charlie Brown. Doesn’t matter, really. All three men were horsehide immortals with ties to our glorious region of gloves and bats and garlic fries.

Muni Stadium, home of the San Jose Giants

(All right, so Charlie was a cartoon character. But his owner and general manager, Charles Schulz, lived in Santa Rosa.)

I will argue this point with anyone: Northern California is one of the best baseball places on earth. The weather is divine for the sport. Kids still (SET ITALICS) play (END ITALICS) the game in fairly large numbers, not always true elsewhere. DiMaggio and Henderson are just two of the Hall of Famers that grew up in these parts.

Never forget, as well, that we live in one of only five metro-opolis-plexes that possesses two Major League teams. The other three are New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington-Baltimore.

And none of those places have a McCovey Cove! Or a tarp!

Sometimes, I think we are a little too cool about all if this and fail to appreciate our surroundings as deeply as we should. It occurred to me, with the new season nigh, that someone should catalog all of the experiences that can make a baseball spring—and summer and autumn—such a sublime experience around here. So I wrote my name in the leadoff spot to make that list.

No one should be considered a true Bay Area baseball fan unless he or she has checked off every one of the following to-do items. And since you have read this far, I presume that you are a Bay Area baseball fan.

Now the focus is back on Oakland to do something. The whole plot has always revolved around that, really.

San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo

The Supreme Court did what most legal doyens predicted Monday. The justices thumbed out San Jose’s antitrust case against Major League Baseball. Some might say this proves the city was foolish to file the case in the first place. I heartily disagree.

When San Jose filed the lawsuit in June of 2013, the city did so because nothing was happening in the A’s quest to build a new ballpark. Major League Baseball was dragging its feet with Bud Selig’s so-called “blue ribbon” panel that was supposed to resolve the problem in either Oakland’s or San Jose’s favor. Oakland had not come up with a plan to satisfy either the A’s or Major League Baseball because the city and county couldn’t agree — plus, the Raiders’ stadium issues were still unresolved. The Giants were being stubborn and not giving an inch on their territorial rights stance regarding Santa Clara County.

So. Why not give it a shot to shake things up and provoke some action? Joe Cotchett and Phil Gregory, two able and high-level attorneys, offered to handle San Jose’s case on a contingency basis. Thus, it didn’t cost the taxpayers any money. Cotchett and Gregory gave it their best shot. As did San Jose.

More than two years later, the effort yielded no action. And where do things stand? Major League Baseball is still dragging its feet on an A’s resolution. Oakland has still not come up with a plan for the team because the city and county can’t get their act together. And, yes, the Raiders’ stadium situation is still unsettled. And the Giants are still being stubborn.

Folks, we’re right back where we started. For San Jose, it was nothing lost, nothing gained. It might as well be 2013. That holds especially true in Oakland, as well. The city’s two-year dalliance with a ridiculously flawed “Coliseum City” concept and San Diego entrepreneur (and smooth talker) Floyd Kephart has been dynamited. That means the East Bay elements of the story remain in flux until further notice.

Oakland, though, is the city on the spot in this drama. As it was five years ago and three years ago and one year ago. If the city comes up with a plan that will work for A’s owners Lew Wolff and John Fisher, as well as for Major League Baseball, then the A’s stay in Oakland. And if not . . . I know it sounds a little nutty on a day like this, but do not rule out San Jose getting involved in the discussion at some point in the future. The city should definitely keep that proposed downtown ballpark property on hold for a while longer.

Here is the unedited “Director’s Cut” version of my column that will appear in Wednesday morning’s Mercury News and other Bay Area News Group newspapers . . .

Thoughts while stuck in Levi’s Stadium parking lot — where you can exit any time you like, but you can never leave . . .

 Calm down. The A’s and Giants will both make the playoffs. Pitching will do it.

 But here is your helpful calendar tip: The American League Wild Card Game is scheduled for Sept. 30. The National League Wild Card Game is October 1. Could easily be a Bay Area back-to-back. Be prepared to call in sick, depending on start times.

 Question I’m pondering, though: Let’s assume the Giants and A’s each get past the wild card game. Which has the best chance to do further damage? If only three starters are needed, has to be the A’s. Keep in mind that with four days between the wild card game and Game 3 of the AL division series, Jon Lester could make both those starts.

 On the other hand: Buster Posey’s face. It has that 2012 look again.

 I truly believed that the Raiders would be a better football team in 2014 because when I looked at their roster compared to recent seasons, I thought it finally looked like a NFL roster. I was right. It just turned out to be the Jacksonville Jaguars roster.

 Head coach Dennis Allen is not responsible for all of the Raiders’ problems. But he is responsible for making sure the team looks prepared to compete. Sunday against Houston, the Raiders looked more ready to tailgate.

 I always believe in following the revenue when it comes to predicting a coach’s future, especially when a team does not sell out on a regular basis. Next time the Raiders must fill seats at O.co Coliseum is Oct. 12, because of the road game at New England, the overseas London trip and a weekend off. If the Raiders don’t give their fans incentive to buy seats in those two televised games, you can also make it a “bye” week for Allen.

 The 49ers will survive their collapse against Chicago just fine, assuming quarterback Colin Kaepernick has no three-pick hangover. But the defense had better figure out a pass rush by Sept. 28 when Philadelphia visits. That’s a very good team.

 Reader Michael Campbell suggests Kaepernick’s problem Sunday was that when he stared down at his arm for the play calls, he somehow mistakenly read one of his tattoos instead.Continue Reading →

In the column that appeared in today’s paper, I referenced a letter sent to Oakland Mayor Jean Quan from neighbors of Howard Terminal, the site championed by several prominent Oakland businessmen as a location for a future ballpark. Quan has verbally supported that Howard Terminal effort but seems more focused on the Coliseum City plan that’s been proposed for the current Coliseum location. This sort of letter might explain Quan’s stance. It’s a public document and can be obtained by anyone from Oakland City Hall by request, but I’ll save you the trouble. Here’s the letter:

As signatories to this letter, we represent a diverse array of companies that have collectively invested millions of dollars into the industrial and transportation infrastructure on the Oakland waterfront. Our businesses have also trained and employed thousands of people from the Oakland area which has helped the Port area thrive as an economic engine in Oakland.
Given our investment in Oakland’s working waterfront, we write to you today with concerns and questions which have arisen given the recent proposal to build a baseball stadium at Howard Terminal, and the political support expressed both for that proposal and for changing the industrial zoning of the area.

The Howard Terminal is surrounded by an assortment of industrial and transportation uses, including an electrical substation, a metal recycling and exporting terminal, a power plant, two separate major trunk pipelines, a mainline portion of the country’s largest Class I railroad, as well as Amtrak and Capitol Corridor passenger trains. In addition, the surrounding road and street infrastructure are handling traffic for our country’s fifth largest container port.
While support for this location has already been expressed by you and others in the media, we are concerned that no one is asking or considering realistic answers to the following questions:

 One of the justifications for locating the stadium at Howard Terminal would be that it would create a new walkable and stadium-supporting community and businesses, yet the uses immediately surrounding the terminal are not compatible with these goals. What consideration has been given to the energy infrastructure uses surrounding the Howard Terminal location?

 Another justification given for this location is that it would create numerous new retail, shopping and dining experiences in the present industrially zoned area proximate to the site. Are the City or stadium proponents actually considering relocating any uses from their locations near or adjacent to this proposed stadium site? If so, how would that occur and with what funding and consideration for the regulatory structure which governs such infrastructure?

 Short-sighted designs and plans which create chronically unsafe interactions between incompatible modes of transportation and conflicting uses unfortunately result in thousands of accidents every year. The odds of unsafe activity by pedestrians and passenger automobiles around heavy machinery, like trains and trucks, increases exponentially around crowds, congestion, and alcohol which we would expect to see at the proposed baseball stadium. This is especially disturbing given the proposal’s goal of creating a neighborhood, street scene activated in the vicinity. What specific considerations would ensure pedestrian, motorist, rail and truck safety?

 The cargo which is the lifeblood of the Port of Oakland relies on the successful operation of the rail and highway infrastructure, and the companies and people that operate the trains and trucks that use that infrastructure. With the lack of public transit serving Howard Terminal, its location vis-à-vis freeway access ramps, and the location of the rail line immediately adjacent to the terminal, what is being proposed to ensure that this proposal will not create major traffic conflicts or impediments to the efficient movement of containers to and from the Port?

 In artist’s renderings published in the media, the proposed baseball stadium is located immediately next to a significant recycling facility. These industrial operations are unique to that location and are located on the only privately-owned terminal with direct access to deep water in the Bay. What mitigation has been considered regarding this existing use to ensure its operations are not negatively impacted?

 The City’s industrial zoning supports the transportation and energy infrastructure uses next to the Howard Terminal – but comments in the media have expressed a desire to change the current zoning to support the stadium. What zoning changes are being considered and where would the city propose to relocate the industrial uses which exist in the current area surrounding Howard Terminal?

Investing in our massive and capital-intensive operations required us to make a long term commitment to the local community. In doing so, we believe that the partnership with our community and with the local governments governing land use at or surrounding our facilities is critical to our area’s success.

In the City of Oakland this means supporting the industrial and maritime operations at the Port of Oakland and preserving the industrial uses and zoning which facilitates the success of the City’s energy and transportation infrastructure.

It is our assumption that prior to taking any official or unofficial action that would promote the development of a baseball stadium at Howard Terminal, that stadium proponents, you and your office will have carefully considered and addressed the very serious questions included in this letter. Given that, we respectfully request that you provide us with preliminary answers to our questions above.

If these questions have not been raised or adequately considered, we sincerely request that they be addressed thoroughly and realistically before any further promotion of the Howard Terminal location occurs.

We would further note that Howard Terminal is the Port of Oakland property, subject to the Port’s development processes and priorities that exist independent of the City. The Port has responsibly gone out for an RFP for the Howard Terminal site and is evaluating proposals at present. This letter is not a comment on the RFP process or any individual proposal. However, we trust that all of the proposals will be compatible with the surrounding land uses and consistent with the state Tidelands Trust and the BCDC Seaport Plan.

Our collection of stakeholders respectfully requests a meeting with you and your staff to further discuss these questions and to establish a dialogue to address any other issues that may arise with respect to this stadium proposal. Please feel free to contact any one of the signatories or Jackie Ray, Schnitzer Steel at (510) 541-7654 to schedule this meeting.

All of our organizations are committed to Oakland and the success of the infrastructure investments that we have made in the city’s waterfront. We look forward to your responses to our questions and to meeting with you in the near future.

Sincerely,

Mr. Eric Sauer
Vice President of Policy and Government Relations
California Trucking Association